Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
Regarding the importance of the default setting:
It's like a group of engineers building a bridge and put up a sign saying "MAX 32 TONNES".
You may send heavier vehicles over the bridge, but at your own risk.

BUIP101 would set the default to crazy high insane number and give the miners the responsibility for the system. Half of the BU membership wanted this. A slightly larger half wanted developers to be gatekeepers. BUIP101 was inspired by the roadmap set by nChain at the time. The BUIP failed by a hair, but nChain delivers in droves. I'm so happy Craig "Satoshi Nakamoto" Wright, Calvin Ayre, Steve Shadders, Daniel Connolly and all the other people in the same determined army is moving the football 10 more yards forward.
 

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
I don't understand why BCH people say that the 32 MB limit is optional. It is part of the consensus rules for BCH. It is enforced by the network.

The mere fact that it can be changed in a config file (in contrast to a code change) means nothing.

If masses of miners decide to raise the limit that's a hard fork.

BSV has a 2 GB enforced limit now and raising it took a hard fork.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
things looking not good for BCH:
@deadalnix's attitude is concerning, Matt was just a junior to Mike when what BIP was accepted, it was released under an OSS licence, the reasons unknown, It's not Matt's to take back, more concerning would @deadalnix remove that feature from BCH for the same reasons? Does @deadalnix believe his contributions to BCH are equal in value to Matts contributions to BTC?
[doublepost=1564162579][/doublepost]
BSV has a 2 GB enforced limit now and raising it took a hard fork.
BU removed the 1MB limit the same way it was added, it does not take a hard fork, it just takes a commitment to not enforce it and in time it is abandoned in the same manner it was adopted.

BU was called Bitcoin Unlimited as it does not limit block size. the Block size limit is not a protocol rule, it's an arbitrary rule that was adopted after the fact. It loses effectiveness when it's no longer enforced. BU is still running on the BTC chain validating 1MB blocks and not supporting the 1MB limit.

Defaults are like the 32MB limit are concerning as they create a Schelling point that can be abused.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
A way forward.

I was once exposed to an analysis of how the Nazzy party leveraged technology in an innovative way to corral a nation. They leveraged radio, recorded orchestral music and film to create illusions of grandeur that spread beyond historical bounds of influence. Such events in the past had commanded great resources and cooperation in the previous eras. The Nazis were able to simulate, what up until then, was known as a costly signal in nature.

Edward Bernays perfected this art know known as Publick Relations he went on to form the CFR to help manage democracy for their own good. A documentary worth watching on the topic. The Century of Self.

Communication technology has shaped our ability to leverage power. These methods are now science and are used to manage world opinions. But interestingly we again sit on a precious of new technologies the fourth age of sand, (fibre optics) this 4th age is only just starting.

Douglas Adams said:
Let me back up for a minute and talk about the way we communicate. Traditionally, we have a bunch of different ways in which we communicate with each other. One way is one-to-one; we talk to each other, have a conversation. Another is one-to-many, which I'm doing at the moment, or someone could stand up and sing a song, or announce we've got to go to war. Then we have many-to-one communication; we have a pretty patchy, clunky, not-really-working version we call democracy, but in a more primitive state I would stand up and say, 'OK, we're going to go to war' and some may shout back 'No we're not!' - and then we have many-to-many communication in the argument that breaks out afterwards! worth the read this weekend
We've never had a universal history ledger. The Blockchain is that ledger, it's one we can all write too, data that can be universally accessed, we have many to many communication, that's new. It's different from the internet, arguably the internet is also manipulated and controlled using methods pioneered by Edward Bernays's.

The Blockchain does not just communicate ideas, it can communicate actual value and it can be used to value ideas, it is a mechanism for heuristically prioritizing knowledge, on a supply-demand curve with many to many communication leveraging economies of scale.

This brings me to an idiom, which I think are relevant in propagating this technology.

Those who can't teach. BTC Core is filled with experts who "teach" they seem clueless. We don't need more teachers, we need people who can create, make order from chaos.

If one reflects on the relationship there are those with knowledge, who want to share it and those who want this knowledge. (people who want to learn) The dissemination of knowledge sits on a supply and demand curve.

The first age of sand in this paradigm metaphor by Douglas Adams was glass that evolved into the lens, which was used to make the telescope which in turn was used to look at the stars, and in turn, created knowledge that in turn changed how we see ourselves in the universe.

If you had this knowledge back then you were considered a heretic, not a teacher. People did not want to learn it but over time people did accept reality and learn. Those who did were more productive than those who rejected it. We can learn from this history and it has similarities to the current paradigm, the emergence of the 4th age of sand.

Knowledge is only valued when if it can create value. One can not give people something they don't value even if it is true. To create a demand for new knowledge it has to help people create value*.

Therein lies the secret to the success of Bitcoin. Helping the one is how you help the many. You can't give a man a fish, you can teach him to fish. If others see the benefit of fisshing they will mimic and improve on that behaviour. (they want to learn, "demand", then you can teach "supply")

It is futile attacking bad ideas. Natural Law (aka evolution) deals with those in its own special way, what is of value is creating value for people. That's called progress, it's doing things better than they have been done before. Progress fosters more progress it creates demand for knowledge.

We all have a chance, how do we use our knowledge for progress determines how and if BitCoin evolves.

* Value is subjective. Natural Law favours those who prioritize values in a way that encourages prosperity and joy.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
it was released under an OSS licence, the reasons unknown, It's not Matt's to take back, more concerning would @deadalnix remove that feature from BCH for the same reasons? Does @deadalnix believe his contributions to BCH are equal in value to Matts contributions to BTC? AND WOULD HE TAKE THEM BACK?
 
@deadalnix's attitude is concerning, Matt was just a junior to Mike when what BIP was accepted, it was released under an OSS licence, the reasons unknown, It's not Matt's to take back, more concerning would @deadalnix remove that feature from BCH for the same reasons? Does @deadalnix believe his contributions to BCH are equal in value to Matts contributions to BTC?
[doublepost=1564162579][/doublepost]

BU removed the 1MB limit the same way it was added, it does not take a hard fork, it just takes a commitment to not enforce it and in time it is abandoned in the same manner it was adopted.

BU was called Bitcoin Unlimited as it does not limit block size. the Block size limit is not a protocol rule, it's an arbitrary rule that was adopted after the fact. It loses effectiveness when it's no longer enforced. BU is still running on the BTC chain validating 1MB blocks and not supporting the 1MB limit.

Defaults are like the 32MB limit are concerning as they create a Schelling point that can be abused.
Concerning? You ignore all the great things Amaury invented selflessly for bitcoin: even the various bugs he introduced are brillant. Concerns are good, but just when they are about that Amaury leaves when you don't flood him with money...

BTW today I learned how much money zooko gets from the 'founders reward' which is cut from the mines reward... He pays himself 200k. No, not annually, but... This place is so full with greedy people, it's really... Concerning.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
like i said, github is the coordinated/centralized point of control for BTC & BCH.

[doublepost=1564189191][/doublepost]https://codeonchain.network/
[doublepost=1564190085,1564189135][/doublepost]So instead of just blanket implementing the new rules we make them conditional not on the current block height, but on the block height at the time the script was created. More specifically the block height at which the input UTXO you are trying to spend was mined into a block.


https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/07/26/utxo-height-based-activation-roadmap-to-genesis-part-3/
 

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany

trinoxol

Active Member
Jun 13, 2019
147
422
Germany
Regarding https://codeonchain.network/, maybe it would be better to create a mutable file system on-chain that you can mount on a computer. That way, all kinds of software would be enabled immediately. This could be expensive and inefficient, though.

With all those data hosting solutions I wonder who is going to serve that data in the future. Serving data from the blockchain is far more expensive than serving it from a normal machine. That blockchain data must live in large, indexed data stores for it to be served. Also, random IO is required which is expensive by itself.

When (not if) the chain is 1000 TB in size there won't be any free servers.

The serving must be done by some provider (e.g. codeonchain.network) or by a generalized blockchain serving provider. In the former case, the provider can eat the costs by making money elsewhere. In the latter case, the end-user would need to pay.

I feel that many of the new blockchain data hosting ideas fail to consider the inevitable future where serving data from the chain will cost money.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
to think that data will be stored perpetually and immutably because blockchain is indeed short-sighted.

what is immutable is the fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko and Norway
The believe is not, that everything will always be for free. The believe is that the market will figure a way out how to allow producers satisfy the demands of customers.

If you have data onchain and you are not willing to pay for it - you might not have access to it. If you put data onchain nobody is interested in - the data might be pruned from nearly all nodes. Imho most people are aware of this and just wait how it plays out. No reason to not build the infrastructure.

There are also a lot of solutions. For example, you can build planaria nodes which store some subset of data. They can have a subset which is small enough to always be free, or they can have subsets which are cheap to buy, or they can store the entire subset and charge high fees for accessing untagged and deep data.

If people are not in a hurry, you can store the data on large harddisc farmhouses with low cpu / ram / bandwidth. Accessing will be slow for customers, but cheap, while the provider can make some profit.

Some things like this. Nobody knows how this plays out, which is no reason for it to fail. I like the sentiment in BSV, that we can just try and see what happens when we put as much data as possible on the blockchain.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
>when we put as much data as possible on the blockchain.

or if we put as much data as possible on the blockchain; let the entrepreneurs decide. so far, for the most part spam has not been an issue, as it appears the spammers are too cheap to pay even the smallest fees (the proverbial pouring barrel fulls of pennies down a deep dark well). that's why i asked the BSV devs about the long term strategy for minfees. personally, i think there should always be a minfee per tx of a few cents to continue to discourage spam. with a minfee, there's also the counter intuitive possibility that after removal of the limit, spam might disappear altogether, as spammers realize it's futile to even try to fill the well.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
ElectrumSV making it hard to install for linux users.
[doublepost=1564252768][/doublepost]>I'm not trying to argue against this concept. But I wonder if this would amount to central planing again.

you're right to a degree. i'm just not sure how a few cent fee could be exploited by devs to corrupt the system to their benefit. it's worked so far on big block chains.
 

Members online